Friday, November 02, 2012

The Blackmail Caucus, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: If President
Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the
wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney
wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy
will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled
back.

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people
from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots
based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney
supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say,
because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of
“partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t.
This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.
...

The starting point for many “vote for Romney or else” statements is the notion
that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his
second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a
great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform — reforms that
will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected. ...

So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things
done. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their
best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they
have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office. ...

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President
Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would
be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame
if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope
not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better
policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things
done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have
no place in American life.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Krugman: The Blackmail Caucus

Don't give in to "protection-racket politics":

The Blackmail Caucus, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: If President
Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the
wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney
wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy
will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled
back.

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people
from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots
based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney
supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say,
because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of
“partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t.
This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.
...

The starting point for many “vote for Romney or else” statements is the notion
that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his
second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a
great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform — reforms that
will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected. ...

So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things
done. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their
best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they
have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office. ...

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President
Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would
be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame
if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope
not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better
policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things
done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have
no place in American life.